To me that book doesn't seem to have any scientifical cerdibility, though.

It is actually quite fascinating how people can come up with stuff like this. I mean, it requires some skill to misunderstand just about every scientifically proven concept in biology and then write a book based on them :)

"To me that book doesn't seem to have any scientifical cerdibility, though.

It is actually quite fascinating how people can come up with stuff like this. I mean, it requires some skill to misunderstand just about every scientifically proven concept in biology and then write a book based on them "

Could you please tell me what is misunderstood in the book. What part of the book conflicts with what empirical research? Thanks.

seekeroftruth wrote:Could you please tell me what is misunderstood in the book. What part of the book conflicts with what empirical research? Thanks.

Well, I'd love to, but to be honest the book has so many non-scientific or unproven claims and concepts that I simply do not have time to cover them. Let's just say that pretty much everything there contradicts the current knowledge in biology and physics, and lacks credible proof or definitions.

If you are going to redefine some of the basic concepts of biology and physics, you need much more than 152 slides to get even started. And they better contain some heavy-class experimental results as proof, which this text seems to be completely lacking...

"Well, I'd love to, but to be honest the book has so many non-scientific or unproven claims and concepts that I simply do not have time to cover them. Let's just say that pretty much everything there contradicts the current knowledge in biology and physics, and lacks credible proof or definitions.

If you are going to redefine some of the basic concepts of biology and physics, you need much more than 152 slides to get even started. And they better contain some heavy-class experimental results as proof, which this text seems to be completely lacking..."

I kind of figured that you would not be able to bring up any examples to support yourself. Lets make this easy. Bring up an objection to the ideas presented and I will respond by showing how you are incorrect or are making an assumption or hold a misconception. Throwing a blanket "Nonsense" on these ideas appears very unscientific.

I propose that all living cells are homeostatic systems that experience primitive emotions and have a primitive consciousness. Consciousness is a form of energy that permeates the entire universe and I call this energy, “emotional energy.” When DNA is properly organized it acts like a container and can retain some emotional energy in its sense strand. This is how dead matter becomes living matter. If DNA is not properly organized, it cannot retain any emotional energy. Nucleotides are like software codes, but for consciousness and emotions.

Prove the existence of "emotional energy". This is not part of the classical physics. How do you measure it?How would you demonstrate that DNA store it? And for the gene that are in the antisense strand, are they dead?

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Humans and other living organisms feel emotions,something has to be causing those emotions, and living organisms appear to have their emotions balanced in a way that overlaps with conservation of electrical charge so its possible that emotions are a byproduct of some form of electricity. There is no universal scientific agreement on what consciousness and emotion is. It is possible that consciousness and emotion are byproducts of a brain, but at what point does it all begin? Emotional electricity is used in the book to explain how living organisms, without brains, appear to have a simple form of consciousness and experience simple forms of feelings. The peer reviewed articles cited in the book go on to make a case to defend emotional electricity.

"This is not part of the classical physics. How do you measure it? How would you demonstrate that DNA store it?"

Maybe the reason why we don't fully understand emotions and consciousness is we are trying to approach them in a classical physics sense. What happens when you approach quantum mechanics like you approach classical physics? Just because we can't measure emotions or consciousness at this point in time or perfectly explain how DNA store emotional electricity, that does not mean that emotional electricity does not exist. Maybe its easier for you to just say what you disagree with and provide empirical support for why you disagree with it. I will answer your conflicts. The book appears to be more focused on dispelling assumptions and misconceptions and showing that based on currently accepted empirical research there can be other explanations then the one you assume is true. What part of the book conflicts with your current beliefs and why? We perceive a difference in our emotions so we know that something is there and this is basis enough to claim that emotions can be quantified, even if we currently do not possess the technology to quantify them.

Maybe you should actually read the book and know what you are talking about before you just throw out wild assumptions.

And for the gene that are in the antisense strand, are they dead?

There is no reason to assume that they are dead. The book does not say they are dead.

“Both information and physical substrate problems point to one solution; that consciousness is a property of a cell, not a group of cells. No one special cell is implicated. It is proposed that all neurons are conscious, or sentient, to a degree; that the single subjective 'soul' is a confabulation.”http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htmJonathan CW EdwardsUniversity College London

“Electrochemical messages are passed between brain cells. Similar signals are passed to every cell in the body… What Freud termed the 'subconscious' mind is actually a measurable physical process. In other words, there is no 'mind-body problem'. Your body is your subconscious mind.”Candace PertGeorgetown University

"when concurrent to suprathreshold synaptic input, small electric fields can have significant effects on spike timing. For low-frequency fields, our theory predicts a linear dependency of spike timing changes on field strength. For high-frequency fields (relative to the synaptic input), the theory predicts coherent firing, with mean firing phase and coherence each increasing monotonically with field strength. Importantly, in both cases, the effects of fields on spike timing are amplified with decreasing synaptic input slope and increased cell susceptibility (millivolt membrane polarization per field amplitude). We confirmed these predictions experimentally using CA1 hippocampal neurons in vitro exposed to static (direct current) and oscillating (alternating current) uniform electric fields. In addition, we develop a robust method to quantify cell susceptibility using spike timing. Our results provide a precise mechanism for a functional role of endogenous field oscillations (e.g., gamma) in brain function and introduce a framework for considering the effects of environmental fields and design of low-intensity therapeutic neurostimulation technologies."http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/11/3030Thomas Radman, Yuzhuo Su, Je Hi An, Lucas C. Parra, and Marom Bikson Department of Biomedical Engineering, City College of the City University

I'm afraid I don't think you're going to get what you are after, a debate about the nature of consciousness, in ways that seem heterodox to the current neurological paradigm.

Whilst I acknowledge that prevailing paradigms in science do indeed get overturned from time to time, it's understandable that science has to err on the side of being hostile to anything that comes across like gobbleygook babble. Psuedo-science is actually more dangerous to accurate knowledge than blatant anti-science.

The issue of consciousness is perhaps the thorniest scientific problem of all, because we are using a conscious mind to investigate the conscious mind, and therefore are inherently 'too close for comfort' to the object we are studying.

Personally, I think the issue of consciousness is a waste of time studying all round, both by the neuroscientists and the anti-neuroscientists, and there are more important biological problems to attend to (such as health issues and saving the planet).

'Know thyself' is as hard to do in science, as it was in pre-science days. Possibly it's even impossible. It's the clash between the Popperian third world of 'out there' and the inner first world of subjective experience. Hard to resolve.

Yes, beware reductionist neuroscience (because it leads to facile, dystopian outcomes), just as beware reductionst genetics (we know the latter can lead, dangerously, to social dystopias such as nazism, convinced it had 'biological proof' of the existence of subhumans, etc), but I would urge you to use your intelligence on more fruitful and useful topics.

You won't convince those who adhere to the neuroscientitic paradigm, and will only be frustrated.